logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.09 2017나52458
어음금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part exceeding the following order for payment shall be revoked, and the revoked part.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 30, 2012, the Defendant issued to C a promissory note, the payee C, the face value of KRW 30,000,000, the date of payment, the blank, the place of payment, and the place of payment, indicated in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

B. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the said Promissory Notes with endorsement by C, and thereafter, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes, but the payment was refused.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a criminal complaint with the Plaintiff and C on the charge of the forgery of the Promissory Notes, etc., but the Defendant directly stated the issuer and amount of the Promissory Notes, and received the title trust management of real estate from the same birth C, and received disposition from the prosecutor of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office on September 24, 2015.”

[Ground of recognition] 1, 2, and 3 evidence (including paper numbers), each of the appraisal results of the first instance court's appraiser D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant, the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay KRW 30,000,000 at the face value of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff, the holder of the Promissory Notes, barring any special circumstance.

(1) The defendant alleged that he forged the Promissory Notes around September 2002. However, in light of the evidence adopted earlier, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it).

(1) The Defendant asserts that the instant promissory note is invalid due to incomplete bills since the Defendant’s assertion on incomplete bills of exchange (A) did not state the meaning of the promissory note and issued it to C, and there was no intent to supplement it.

(B) If a promissory note is issued in a blank space, the bill shall be payable at sight, unless there are special circumstances.

arrow